Apollo 15, Jim Irwin's historical narrative in review

Each one of these men is connected to a retired Florida movie producer. His initials are "H.H."

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
Each one of these men is connected to a retired Florida movie producer. His initials are "H.H."

Not to be confused with HOWARD HAWKES
en.wikipedia.org...

Howard Hughes Medical Institute - this begins his long association wth NAZA and Cape Canaveral

AND HE BEAT THE IRS in the affair mentioned below...........amazing

Main article: Howard Hughes Medical Institute

In 1953, Hughes launched the Howard Hughes Medical Institute in Miami, Florida, and currently located in Chevy Chase, Maryland, formed with the express goal of basic biomedical research, including trying to understand, in Hughes' words, the "genesis of life itself." Hughes' first will, which he signed in 1925 at the age of 19, stipulated that a portion of his estate should be used to create a medical institute bearing his name.[37] When a major battle with the IRS loomed ahead, Hughes gave all his stock in the Hughes Aircraft Company to the institute, thereby turning the aerospace and defense contractor into a for-profit entity of a fully tax-exempt charity. Hughes' internist, Dr. Verne Mason, who treated Hughes after his 1946 plane crash, was chairman of the institute's medical advisory committee.[38] The Howard Hughes Medical Institute's new board of trustees sold Hughes Aircraft in 1985 to General Motors for US$5.2 billion, allowing the institute to grow dramatically.

The deal was the topic of a protracted legal battle between Hughes and the Internal Revenue Service, which Hughes ultimately won. After his death in 1976, many thought that the balance of Hughes' estate would go to the institute, although it was ultimately divided among his cousins and other heirs, given the lack of a will to the contrary. The HHMI was the 4th largest private organization as of 2007[39] and the largest devoted to biological and medical research, with an endowment of US$16.3 billion as of June 2007.


FROM HERE- The Struggle for Consolidation: The Hughes Era
home.earthlink.net...

The Florida unit [of Howards Hughes] became the first of its kind in the Air Force. By 1956 the Florida unit was conducting tests with long-range guided missiles and target drones. The center had a proving ground stretching more than 1000 miles from Cape Canaveral to a point off the coast of Puerto Rico. This test center eventually came to be used for the Mercury manned ballistic spaceflight missions.

reply to post by Vitruvian

In 1953, Hughes launched the Howard Hughes Medical Institute in Miami, Florida, and currently located in Chevy Chase, Maryland,

And Chevy Chase played Gerald Ford, who was vice president under-- who else?-- RICHARD M. NIXON!!! It all ties together perfectly!!!

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

This is not the first - or the last - time that Apollo moon rocks went missing. In fact, NASA has never had adequate controls on lunar materials. Never. They have always had problems with inventories. So much problems --- in fact NASA has revised and revised the lunar inventories several times -- but they still can't account for the stuff properly and they don't do well in audits.

Your post was off-topic. The issue is not NASA's inventory control, is it? So, since you've broadened the discussion up again, what about this:



Do you really think anyone would edit out Dave Scott's "swooping entrance" because Deke Slayton was so impressed by it? Deke Slayton saw these films. Why would he be impressed by Scott's entrance?

reply to post by DJW001


DJ why do you post Apollo 8 videos in this thread when you know this thread subject is "Apollo 15, Jim Irwin".?
You are trying to distract people from the Apollo 15 Tv press conference video that took place at 270:21 MET.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

DJ why do you post Apollo 8 videos in this thread when you know this thread subject is "Apollo 15, Jim Irwin".?

Why do you post newspaper articles about NASA's inventory control, when you know the subject is "Apollo 15, Jim Irwin?"

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

Updating the PERP LIST, More NASA VOMIT, Gosh we hate to leave anyone out spotted as BARFING UP HIGH OCTANE, HIGH QUALITY, MANNED SPACE FLIGHT STORY BULL

Excellent point as regards the movie makers SayonaraJupiter, no question those films, better said, that NASA VOMIT is full on, full fledged, U.S. Manned Space Program propaganda.

Upon your very appropriate recommendation SayonaraJupiter, we'll list the NASA movie making crews provisionally as PERPS. I'll have "my staff" look into their work, the details, once we firm things up, we'll move 'em over to FULL ON, FULL FLEDGED PERP STATUS.

Good timing, as a couple colleagues and I are working hard right now to update the PERP LIST. I'd like to post an updated comprehensive one in the next week or so. Even though it is early on in the PERP LIST thread, so so so so much more ground to cover, even with regard to PERPS already named, we'd hate to leave anybody out that's been spotted BARFING UP HIGH OCTANE, HIGH QUALITY MANNED SPACE FLIGHT STORY BULL, ya' know..................... ?

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

This is not the first - or the last - time that Apollo moon rocks went missing. In fact, NASA has never had adequate controls on lunar materials. Never. They have always had problems with inventories. So much problems --- in fact NASA has revised and revised the lunar inventories several times -- but they still can't account for the stuff properly and they don't do well in audits.

so they had full control, and knew where every single rock brought back from the moon to do a "switcheroo" yet they dont have adequate control to have other external institutes either lose or or not return or keep track of the rocks they have loaned..

Originally posted by decisively
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
I'll have "my staff" look into their work,

What kind of hospital.... do you work at lmfao.
Shouldn't your staff be seeing to patience as well...

Yet another completely ridiculous bit of Apollonian Inconsistency, PART ONE

I came across an interesting bit of Apollonian Internal Incoherence today. I view SayonoraJupiter's thread here as primarily a character analysis based thread, in particular, a James Irwin focused thread. My finding today, though David Scott/James Irwin/Apollo 15 relevant, nevertheless falls under the more mainstream category of "LOOK AT THIS CONTRADICTION ! IT IS STARK RAVING SIGNIFICANT, AND WHEN WELL STUDIED WILL UNDOUBTEDLY LEAD US TO SOMETHING OF IMPORTANCE". So this specific thread may not be the perfect place for this more topically generic post, but nevertheless, I still believe this to be the best spot. As such, I'll lay it out here.

Between two "competing" versions/tellings of the Apollo 15 LM/Falcon's landing details/circumstances, I have discovered a huge and very interesting discrepancy/contradiction, a discrepancy/contradiction so big, so insanely vast, that one could fly a phony Saturn V right through the bad boy.

As always, such clear cut and very much non-accidental discrepancies are in and of themselves proofs of Apollonian fraudulence, for as I am ever so fond of saying, since both versions cannot be true, neither is, and as such, Apollo is in consequence proven inauthentic. In addition, as is generally the case, and as undoubtedly will be shown to be the case here, this type of lying, this giving two versions of the same story, this trying to have it both ways, is a clue, AND a HUGE CLUE with respect to some important aspect of the fraud.

These lies are clues which may well lead us to something exceedingly important, and make no mistake about it, intentionally telling this story about the Falcon's landing two very different ways is without question a lie, unambiguously so. Those of us on my side of the fence, the Patriotic American side of the Apollo Fraud Battle, those of us battling to bring the truth of Apollo's fraudulence to public awareness, we study these contradictions for 2 reasons. Reason one is to know the discrepancies/contradictions well enough so that they may be articulately presented to the public at large, and so presented, help more members of our community to come to see/understand Apollo as the fraud which it is. Secondly, the lying behind these contradictions is MOTIVATED, has a reason behind it. As such, we come to learn not only that Apollo was fraudulent, but in what way it was/is fraudulent. That is, we learn a little bit about WHAT REALLY HAPPENED.

In the case of the Falcon landing inconsistency, as the reader will see, it is rather easy to show the Apollo fraud PERPS have been caught lying here. It is easy to show the internal incoherence here. What it all means shall be left for the most part to later posts, though I'll touch on a few key points and possibilities with respect to the issue of what motivated the lying in this particular case, the lying with respect to the Falcon's alleged landing circumstances. Now on to the substance of the matter.

I sent away for an old newspaper some time back; the 08/01/1971 SUNDAY TIMES UNION(AKA New York's Great State Newspaper). It arrived today. This is an actual newspaper, not a film nor an image copy of any sort. It is in good shape, good condition. Page 3-A features several articles about the Falcon landing, and one article( SPACE CENTER, Houston (UPI) ) in particular, " "SOFT TOUCH" SCOTT MAKES GENTLE LANDING", caught my attention as it contradicted what I had previously read. I had read in several other accounts that the Falcon's landing was more than a bit rough. I'll give a nice example of that in due course, but first, I'll provide the relevant quote from the 08/01/1971 SUNDAY TIMES UNION;

Scott's touch on the throttle of the 9,900 pound thrust of the Falcon engine was so skillful that the 18 ton craft was moving only seven tenths' of a mile per hour when it touched the moon according to flight director Glynn Lunney. That's slower than a person jumping off a two foot porch. Scott's radioed readings from the Falcon indicated he was moving even slower. Lunney said the landing didn't show on the seismometer left by either Apollo 12 or 14, instruments are so sensitive they record footsteps near them.

Yet Another Completely Ridiculous Bit Of Apollonian History , PART TWO

So in this "first version" of the Falcon landing, the bird touches down and it's the softest landing in the history of the blah blah blah. However, before reading this old newspaper and coming across this Space Center UPI article, I had always been under the impression that NASA was pitching a contrary version of things. Here's a contrary telling, an example of a "second version" of the Apollo 15/Falcon lunar landing circumstances. This, from the Colin Burgess edited , "FOOTPRINTS IN THE DUST, THE EPIC VOYAGES OF APOLLO, 1969-1975" (University of Nebraska Press, 2010). The Chapter of interest is Chapter 8, ON A ROLL AT HADLEY, author, Geoffrey Bowman. Pages 243 and 244;

Falcon dropped the last few feet and struck the uneven surface with a solid thump that rattled every piece of equipment on board. "BAM !" exclaimed Irwin. Scott reported, " Okay, Houston, the Falcon is on the plain at Hadley." Irwin added: "No denying that. We had contact!"....

The landing had not only been a hard one, but the Falcon had come down partially inside a small crater, with the engine bell contacting the crater's rim....

In 1983 Jim irwin discussed the landing with the author: " I said 'BAM!' when we hit, because it was a very hard landing, and I'm surprised that I wasn't prepared for it. It's the only landing that I have ever made standing up, so it was a great surprise .

Has your intelligence been sufficiently insulted yet ? We are to believe this guy, this fighter pilot, this James Irwin super jock, actually said "BAM !!!" like a school yard playin' 6 year old adding sound effects to a bump he delivered to a friend on impact ?

Consider the following possible explanations;

1) They could not fake the seismometer stuff, pull it off, time it just right, hence the SPACE CENTER, Houston (UPI) TIMES UNION soft landing version of this nonsense.

2) Dust was said to have been swirling about the Falcon as it came down, so much so, they couldn't see diddly squat. Perhaps the reason for the "BAM !!!", and the need for the hard landing version has to do with their wanting to hide the landing site. Yet another LOST BIRD scenario, this one for Apollo 15. The dust swirling version would require a hard landing. Dust swirling version is employed to perhaps "hide" the real-time point of contact. If they cannot see the terrain's details for all the dust, they then could not have described the landing site sufficiently well enough to have had geologists independently CONFIRM the Falcon's alleged location. Of course there are other possible explanations.

Anyone know if there was alleged to be a continuously running on board recorder ? If there was, that might explain the Irwin "BAM !!!!" so one could not hear the actual landing sound. If Irwin hadn't said "BAM !!!" loudly, and assuming there was a recording of the landing, including the sound at the time of alleged contact, then a cynical doctor in 2012 might do some forensics and prove the "landing sound" was fake, and with the fake landing sound, all of Apollo 15 would so be demonstrated fraudulent. If there was a recorder, Irwin may have said "BAM !!!" to cover for a contact sound the PERPS felt unable to adequately fake/dub.

More to be investigated, and with our investigation, more for sure will be revealed. But suffice it to say, these guys NEEDED TO HAVE IT BOTH WAYS OR THEY WOULD NOT HAVE RISKED THE CONTRADICTION.

Soft landing because they cannot fake the seismic effect/timing, hard landing for reasons as of yet to be fully elucidated.

reply to post by decisively

2) Dust was said to have been swirling about the Falcon as it came down, so much so, they couldn't see diddly squat. Perhaps the reason for the "BAM !!!", and the need for the hard landing version has to do with their wanting to hide the landing site.

so a soft landing is used to hide a landing.. and a hard landing is used to hide a landing..

If they cannot see the terrain's details for all the dust, they then could not have described the landing site sufficiently well enough to have had geologists independently CONFIRM the Falcon's alleged location. Of course there are other possible explanations

you seem to have a deep understanding of landing a LM on the moon.. tell me, at what height would visibility of the moon surface be a problem during landing? 10ft up? 100ft? 1000ft? what would the minimum height to pick a landing spot?

Soft landing because they cannot fake the seismic effect/timing, hard landing for reasons as of yet to be fully elucidated.

hmmm.. cannot fake a seismic effect?? yet they can fake everything else they can fake extended periods of 0g.. they can fake a pendulum swing (which means faking gravity) they can fake a paper/plastic bag being thrown around the moon.. they can fake editing tv press conferences (floating around and all) in less than a fraction of a second.. they can fake the behaviour of dust being kicked around.. they can fake a zero atmosphere and simultaneous lowered gravity.. they can fake 6 moon landings fooling everyone for 40 years..

but they cant fake a simple shake.. even though aircraft simulators are able to..

The PROBLEMS with BAMS and BANGS

I mentioned the issue above about the alleged Irwin "BAM !!!" . I don't want to go off on a tangent here and discuss another mission/situation/problem in any kind of full fledged way, but it has occurred to me this Irwin "BAM !!!" issue may be somewhat like the Apollo 13 "large vs dull bang" issue.

In the latter case, with Apollo 13, you'd think the astronauts would be consistent with their describing the sound as one of significant magnitude. But they don't. Sometimes Lovell has referred to it as a "dull bang". Why is that?

Does anyone know, to ask the question yet again, and this time with reference to two situations in which it may be relevant, the Apollo 13 alleged O2 tank explosion and the Apollo 15 Falcon landing as well, is it/was it the case that a recorder was alleged to be operating at all times in the Apollo CMs and LMs ?

If the answer is in the affirmative, I believe we have an answer to "The PROBLEMS with BAMS and BANGS".

Dear NASA,

Please send me an inside the CM recording of when the O2 tank blew up within the Apollo 13 service bay. I want to do a bit of in home forensics and see if I can determine from the sound magnitude whether the "bang" is commensurate with the claims NASA made of damage so imparted to the good ship, "FRAUDULENT APOLLO 13". Ditto NASA friends for an inside the LM tape of the goings on in the Apollo 15 lander Falcon. I'd like to hear the real BAM and also Jim Irwin's over dubbing human voice BAM.

Thank you very much,

Joe Q Concerned and Long Done Ripped Off Citizen

reply to post by decisively

In the latter case, with Apollo 13, you'd think the astronauts would be consistent with their describing the sound as one of significant magnitude. But they don't. Sometimes Lovell has referred to it as a "dull bang". Why is that?

Because he's trying to find words to describe a real experience, not reading from a script, obviously.

Sample Bag 196: The Genesis Rock Switcher-oo

Let's start by establishing that Sample Bag 196 contains the Genesis Rock sample.



From the Apollo 15 mission transcript,

275:44:37 Irwin (onboard): Dave, I hope we're going to be able to see them unload all those rocks.
275:44:42 Scott (onboard): Yes, I think we should.
275:44:43 Irwin (onboard): Okay.
275:44:44 Scott (onboard): ... time ...
275:44:48 Irwin (onboard): I hope so. Yes. They'll just have to hold up the - the rocks until we're there.
275:44:58 Scott (onboard): ... going to have a ball ... Is that why you ...?
275:45:07 Irwin (onboard): Yes.

Four days after splashdown, CDR Scott and LMP Irwin visited the Lunar Receiving Lab on a Wednesday night, ostensibly, to "study" the Genesis Rock. They expected that LRL would be opening Sample Bag 196, the bag which they knew contained the Genesis Rock...

"...but found the rock was not in the sample bag where they expected it to be. It is in another bag which will be opened Friday." - Middlesboro Daily News, August 12, 1971

Dave Scott has a pretty good memory. The Genesis rock sample went into Sample Bag 196. When they opened 196, on Wednesday night, August 11, 1971, at the Lunar Receiving Lab, the rock was not in the bag where he expected it to be.

I am rather concerned about the recent "moon rock" posts. I.e., why am I seeing postings here that make it seem as though there really were rock specimens having been returned to the earth from the moon? Perhaps you all should instead be talking about already existing meteorites found right here on planet earth that were used to pose as moon rocks and/or Werner Von-Brauns several visits to the Antartic in search of earth meteorites and earth rocks suitable for the "rock ruse"- no?

There were no astronauts on the moon! So how can anyone here surmise that non-existent moon walkers brought such things back with them?

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

Let's start by establishing that Sample Bag 196 contains the Genesis Rock sample.

It did. Your reporter got his facts wrong:



curator.jsc.nasa.gov...

The so called "Genesis Rock" was sample 15415, which was indeed logged in sample bag 196. Your reporter may have misunderstood what was going on. The astronauts might have anticipated that the technicians would open that sample bag first, but instead it had been scheduled for Friday. Perhaps if you search furiously enough, you can find another source that corroborates the single news story you have pinned your entire argument on.

Edit to add: You might try reading this article:

news.google.com...

reply to post by DJW001


The newspaper you posted is from August 10, 1971. "We're trying to do things in a controlled systematic way," said Dr. Michael Duke, Lunar Receiving Laboratory curator at the Manned Spacer Craft center, explaining why bag 196 won't be opened until later in the week." Spokane Daily Chronicle, August 10, 1971

The newspaper I posted says that Scott & Irwin went to the LRL on Wednesday night, they EXPECTED Sample Bag 196 would be opened. Bag 196 was opened, my source clearly indicated,

"...but found the rock was not in the sample bag where they expected it to be. It is in another bag which will be opened Friday." - Middlesboro Daily News, August 12, 1971 My source also says that Sample Bag 196 would be opened on August, Friday the 13th.

Then you posted a link to a NASA report from November of 1971 many months after this incident took place.

Sample Bag 196 was opened on Wednesday night. The Genesis Rock was NOT in Sample Bag 196. Switcher-oo.

Originally posted by Vitruvian
I am rather concerned about the recent "moon rock" posts. I.e., why am I seeing postings here that make it seem as though there really were rock specimens having been returned to the earth from the moon? Perhaps you all should instead be talking about already existing meteorites found right here on planet earth that were used to pose as moon rocks and/or Werner Von-Brauns several visits to the Antartic in search of earth meteorites and earth rocks suitable for the "rock ruse"- no?

There were no astronauts on the moon! So how can anyone here surmise that non-existent moon walkers brought such things back with them?

edit on 24-6-2012 by Vitruvian because: spell

Vitruvian, what do you think of the newspaper articles?

Dave Scott has a good memory.
He went down to the LRL with Jim Irwin on Wednesday night.
They EXPECTED to find the the Genesis Rock in Sample Bag 196.
It wasn't in Sample Bag 196 because it was in another bag.

How does it all add up to you, Vitruvian?